"Preventative Detention"?

[Good Luck]

I think you just admitted to exactly what I said, so maybe I don't have to prove anything.

There is a significant difference between taking people into custody during targeted raids, and "simply pulling men off the streets". The former is a result of acting on intelligence gained from various sources, the latter is acting at random, a method which has zero advantage over the former while having significant drawbacks over the former, and therefore is highly unlikely to have been engaged in.

It is still up to you to show where you got your suspicions of random behavior on the part of our military. Was there a media report? Or is it just because you have your suspicions based on your overall mistrust and dislike of the situation and former administration? Bitterness at the former administration does not quite cut it as legitimate cause for such a claim.

Of course, if we forget the unsupportable claims of grabbing men off the street, and focus on those that are already proven (people grabbed in raids but not properly processed) then we agree that there was/is a big concern. How to handle it is the question. IMO we should simply send back those not properly processed according to established protocols, process them as they should have been from the beginning, release or send to local authority according to procedure, and send the ones with substantiated evidence against them back to Guantanamo to be treated, appropriately, as enemy combatants. Unfortunately too much political water has gone under that bridge, so they've decided they need a politically correct solution instead of a practical one.

 

[Immanuel]

There is a significant difference between taking people into custody during targeted raids, and "simply pulling men off the streets". The former is a result of acting on intelligence gained from various sources, the latter is acting at random, a method which has zero advantage over the former while having significant drawbacks over the former, and therefore is highly unlikely to have been engaged in.

It is still up to you to show where you got your suspicions of random behavior on the part of our military. Was there a media report? Or is it just because you have your suspicions based on your overall mistrust and dislike of the situation and former administration? Bitterness at the former administration does not quite cut it as legitimate cause for such a claim.

Of course, if we forget the unsupportable claims of grabbing men off the street, and focus on those that are already proven (people grabbed in raids but not properly processed) then we agree that there was/is a big concern. How to handle it is the question. IMO we should simply send back those not properly processed according to established protocols, process them as they should have been from the beginning, release or send to local authority according to procedure, and send the ones with substantiated evidence against them back to Guantanamo to be treated, appropriately, as enemy combatants. Unfortunately too much political water has gone under that bridge, so they've decided they need a politically correct solution instead of a practical one.

It seems to me that we simply have a difference of wording for the same thing. You claim there was intel involved in the raids. There has been much discussion of people being taken because their neighbors turned them in. Would that be what you consider "intel"? I would consider that as being taken off the streets with no supportable evidence of wrong doing.

Immie

 

[Good Luck]

It seems to me that we simply have a difference of wording for the same thing. You claim there was intel involved in the raids. There has been much discussion of people being taken because their neighbors turned them in. Would that be what you consider "intel"? I would consider that as being taken off the streets with no supportable evidence of wrong doing.

Immie

I agree that some of the intel used to target raids had low reliability factors. But that's still a significant distance from just grabbing someone randomly off the sidewalk or at a roadbloack and saying "Come with us, we want to question you." (which is what I picture when someone says we are simply grabbing men off the streets.)

The government and MSM are bad enough using deliberately inflammatory (or deliberately UN-flammatory, whichever suits their purpose) phraseology - both of which are basically dishonest when the supposed purpose is to impart accurate information. We do not need to be using such with each other in an honest debate.

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: back to the original point of this thread, while the topic did come up during a discussion that included Guantanamo, if you read the entire article, it is clear Obama's proposal is NOT limited to the current situation.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents.

and

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan.

Not pretty.